rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It's impossible to prove the lack of existence of a god. Similarly, if I believe in a fairy at the bottom of my garden, nobody can prove it isn't there.A few points to consider, though.Believing in something, however passionately, although it may make you feel better about the world and your position in it, doesn't make it true. I would say the existence of a god or an afterlife can be speculation at most.What form does your faith take? Do you go to church? Do you believe in heaven as well as God? What about the soul?Does a stone go to heaven when it’s crushed? Or a house when it's demolished? What about a woodlouse or a dog? Did Neanderthal man? Do any of them have souls? If not, at what stage of evolution did the soul come into being, and what is it?Are the people who died before Christianity saved? Where are they? Are the Vikings still in Valhalla or did they get a transfer to heaven?Why can a person who has had a religious revelation never get anyone else to corroborate it? Catholics weren’t allowed to eat meat on certain days of the week. Then on Fridays only. Then they were. God’s will is continuously being re-invented by humans (what happened to the Divine Right of Kings?) So why not the same for God himself? God does not appear in any mathematical equation or scientific formula that I'm aware of, and belief in one is not necessary to explain the physical workings of the world. Or, for that matter, to explain human creativity and invention. So why bother? And even if there were a supreme creator/prime mover, a head honcho manifesting itself variously in all these religions, alone or with a host of cherubs and angels, why should anyone love it, worship it or want to do its will?
Universities being increasingly run on business models goes hand in hand with the direct encroachment of businesses themselves.How long before we see the Tesco Manchester Met or King's BP College London?
I like this bit of doublespeak:"Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons…We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command".You're free to say what you like or keep quiet but if you don't say what I want I'll make you. A bit reminiscent of the two-faced posturing in some quarters post Charlie Hebdo.
JordanBI think you have a point when you say that many in the 'first world' are too caught up in their life cycles to want to be bothered about socialist politics. Or any politics for that matter. It could be said that many of the better off are downright complacent and see themselves as having done very well out of the current system.But if you have to be hungry and impoverished to want socialism, then by implication there would be more socialists in the third world than there are in the developed countries. But looking at the SPGB and its companion parties, I would say the opposite is the case (even though there aren't many of us).Members of the World Socialist Movement come from all walks of life. Anyone can get the message, it's just a pity so few have.
When education is freed from the constraints of capitalistic, profit-based demands, it's bound to become a lot more fluid and amorphous. Those who enjoy teaching and mentoring would no doubt enjoy their new liberated roles in a socialist society.But I think a distinction needs to be drawn between education and training. 'Vocational' training will still be required in a socialist society, and will be as strict as necessary for the job in hand. Nobody wants to be flown by a half-trained pilot, or advised by an incompetent surveyor.Education – which could broadly be thought of as self-improvement – I see as being much more fluid than at present. Would there be a set of commonly-agreed targets to achieve, like the three Rs, which were seen as needing to be taught in some kind of school? Possibly, but I think this kind of stuff, and other 'basic' things that were useful to know, would be mostly soaked up from a person's environment as they grew.I would not envisage the type of formal schooling that drills into unwilling pupils by the hour the laws of physics, the rules of grammar, the history of kings and queens or the differences between different kinds of rocks.It's only in the capitalist era that our industrial-style schooling system has existed.
A similar question often occurs to me.Of course it's important that we recognise the current power of the state as the enforcer of class rule and that socialism will mean its disappearance.But once socialism is on the horizon as a realistic proposition, and the majority of the police and the armed forces have come over to it, a lot of democratic 'socialistic activity' will be taking place at local and regional levels without a state to get in the way much. There will be enough people simply to refuse to do its will, if it still has one. Much of the activity will involve finding practical solutions to problems hitherto unsolvable. Much of it will entail simply not doing things that are done in capitalism – things mostly to do with money and/or coercion, such as not paying for things, not sitting school exams, not putting people in prison, and so on. The state machine, as I see it, won’t as much be conquered as dispersed. Once the collective will is a socialist one, the state will already have gone.What is left of the police and armed forces, that a socialist society can use, will be those elements involved with logistical organisation, say for organising food banks and relief operations. Former judges, JPs and ombudsmen may be useful at helping to moderate meetings and settle arguments. Former schoolteachers will still have an educational role. And so on.
Is supporting or paying money to a charity reformist? Is it always pointless from a working class perspective?I don't mean as an organisation or as a policy, but as an individual.
He then presents a string of reformist proposals. Maybe he's been put up to it! As if it would make any difference what background the people in charge came from.The Tories have said themselves that they want to reverse this image of a privileged elite always in charge. The article itself says they have introduced more cabinet members from comprehensive schools in an attempt to counter the impression.But whatever the 'impression', of course it's all a smokescreen. They could all be wearing flat caps and come from oop north, as we know it wouldn't make a hap'orth of difference.
We could also be said to be attempting to radicalise young people because we are attempting to radicalise the whole working class.
Just think what governments would be trying if the world socialist movement were bigger, a small but significant minority, say 3 or 4 percent of the population. I had always thought that would be the time to fear clampdowns, but it could be happening much sooner.On their own, Cameron and his cronies could turn out to be particularly nasty, but there you are, workers, you get what you vote for.They have been on the news saying they want to appeal more to the average working person. Then in an amazing feat of doublespeak, in the same news programme, they announce they want to introduce measures to limit the right to strike.Coupled with their stance on extremism and their desire to abolish the Human Rights Act for something more 'British', they are certainly hitting the ground running.
If the Money Free Party are in fact anything like the SPGB, as has been suggested in another thread, then maybe we can use them as a gauge of how socialist ideas spread without the use of the S-word. See how many Facebook followers they get compared to us, etc.
Interestingly, I was talking to my wife's nephew about politics a few days before election day. He's doing a politics degree at York Uni and asked me what I thought about the election.So I told him I was a socialist etc. etc., and he fully understood what I was on about. He said, off his own bat, that what had happened in Russia and China had given socialism a bad name. This is from someone under 20. So maybe that politics degree is doing some good.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I did sayQuote:The cry of "The footballers are paid too much" is the cry of management.I didn't say it was workers against management, but the cry of management is a cry in the interest of the owners…
I don't particularly want to labour the point, but it was your first post I was commenting on:
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, they're rich, and if they don't piss their incomes up the wall, they'll become capitalists the second it hits the bank. But the fact remains they are workers, wealthy workers, and we're opn their side against the management.
